We have breaking news this morning.
The International Court have just released its preliminary ruling, and we're also going to be joined here by Treta Parsi to talk about the ruling, which is being heralded as a victory for South Africa because the Court has allowed the case to go forward. I'm kind of new with some of these devices here, so I'm going to try to put this clip up here as Hoving and Post is calling it un stunner. Top Court finds genocide risk
in Gaza. The Court has given Israel one month to change its military operation to reduce the risk of genocide.
It found that.
There is a that South Africa has made a plausible case. Let me play real quickly a little bit from the American judge who issued the ruling, which we do not have yet in kind of full PDF.
Form, but they issued it from the Hague. Here we go.
In the Court's view, the foreman facts and circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of Palestinians and Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article three and the right of South Africa to seek Israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the Convention.
And so we're joined now by Treta Parsi, who let me pull up tree to what you had said in a breaking fashion you wrote, the ICJ just ruled against Israel the termin that South Africa successfully argue that Israel's conduct plausibly could constitute genocide. This is a devastating blow to Israel's global standing.
Unpacked that for us.
Why is this considered a devastating blow when South Africa's most kind of expansive demand was an immediate cessation of all hostilities.
Thank you so much, Rian, good to be with you. This is still devastating. The fact that South Africa asked for all of those things, of course in an immediate testation, was a bit optimistic at the end of the day. But what the Court has ruled is overwhelmingly in favor of South Africa. And also the division between the judges was I think stronger than expected. It was essentially only two judges that at times objected to the ruling. This
is devastating because at the end of the day. This means that the South Africans have made a plausible case that genocide is taking place. Genocide is the crime of all crimes. You have to put yourself in Israel's position in terms of a historical effort by these raelis to break out of its international isolation, which has largely been very successful. Remember, up until nineteen ninety one, most countries in the world did not recognize it or did not
have the diplomatic relations Israel. That all changed because of the OSMO process, and since then it's been very very successful. Then Israel has been able to normalize itself to a very large extent, at least in the West. Now you have Israel in the last couple of years increasingly being associated with apartheid. That term is increasingly public being used to describe it, and now you also have a genocide
ruling against it. Of course, the final ruling has not come in yet, but essentially enough evidence has been presented to warrant a court to say that an injunction is needed and this needs to be investigated further. What that will do to Israel's international isolation and standing, I think it's going to be very significant, and if I could just add one point right. Keep in mind, in the last couple of years, they have worked so hard to delegitimize the BDS movement and pass laws against it, laws
that are arguably unconstitutional in the United States. And this has not been done because they were worried about the economic impact of the BDS movement on Israel. It's because of the diplomatic and political impact in terms of essentially
delegitimizing Israel. Well, nothing has delegitimized Israel more than this court fooling and the fact that one of the primary evidence that was being used in the court was Israeli political statements themselves that were used against Israel in order to show the genitiside.
Let me play a response real quickly from Netan Yahoo here if I can.
Israel's commitment to international law is unwavering. Equally unwavering is our sacred commitment to continue to defend our country and defend our people. Like every country, Israel has an inherent right to defend itself. The vile attempt to deny Israel this fundamental right is blatant discrimination against the Jewish States, and it was justly rejected. The charge of genocide level against Israel is not only false, is our rageous and
decent people everywhere should reject it. On the eve of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, I again pledge as Israel's Prime Minister, never again, Israel will continue to defend itself against Hamas, a genocidal terror organization. On October seventh, Hamas perpetrated the most horrific atrocities against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, and it vows to repeat these atrocities again. The war is against Hamas terrorists, not against Palestinian civilians.
We will continue to facilitate humanitarian assistance and to do our utmost to keep civilians out of harm's way, even as Hamas uses civilians as human shields. We will continue to do what is necessary to defend our country and defend our lit.
So that's Prime Minister management that Yahoo responding calling it discrimination, calling it outrageous, pledging to continue the war effort. What did you make of his respects there?
It's very defensive and very predictable. Of course, at the end of the day, the Court is not in any way, shape or form saying that this rule doesn't have a right to defend itself. But what it is saying is that what Israel calls defense is plausibly genocide and that it needs to investigate that further. And it's giving these Raelis, as you mentioned, thirty days to address some of these things.
And it also calls on Israel to prosecute those members of government that have been making genocidal statements, that includes
the Natania. This is putting the United States in a very significant bind because, as the court reminded Israel, its rulings are binding, but it is the Security Council that is tasked with enforcing the implementation of this, and that means that there's very likely going to be a resolution at the UN Security Council this coming week, and it presents the United States once again with that dilemma, does it actually stand with international law and improve this or
does it go against it, further isolating the US. By Catlett pick.
Up on that exact point, because the New York Times wrote, and it's fairly slanted report on this, on this ruling. At one point they wrote, the court has no means of enforcement, and it is not clear how Israel will respond to the decision. But we now have you know who's response. But you would never see The New York Times right, the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade,
but it has no means of enforcement. Although that is true, Like Alexander Hamilton made that point about the Supreme Court, Andrew Jackson has made that point about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has made its ruling, Now let it enforce it. It has no actual mechanism of enforcement other than the kind of norms around the court and the respect that other institutions have for the Court rulings and the respect that the population has for the Court rulings.
So it is not true that the Court has no means of enforcement. It has The United Nations does, in fact have means of enforcing its rulings. So the question is can it enforce those rulings? And so what are the means of enforcing those rulings and what process can we look for going forward? So Israel has in one month, Israel has to report back to the court. Let's presume
they continue to participate with this process. What then happens if the Court in a month decides that Israel is not taking steps to minimize the risk of genocide.
So well, I think will happen first is that you will have a UN Security Council resolution. The Algerians are already discussing it, and that would then adopt the ruling and essentially give it the enforcement capability of the UN
Security Council again finding international law. And again will the United States v to that again as it has vi to the previous calls per season, And this is really you know, it's stretching the ability to be able to tolerate the double standards of the US's conduct when it comes to matters of this time. If these ratings then come back with a report, it's a question as to whether they will. They may actually choose not to engage at all and try to dismiss the legitimacy of the
court altogether. But if they come back and it is not acceptable, I mean, it's going to be a legal
rankling for quite some time. But the issue is that the political consequences and costs for Israel will continue as long as this is a live case and they're not living up to what the court is demanding, and that is going to inflict the political costs of the US even more so perhaps from the Europeans, from whom you know, international law and international institutions actually matter much more than it does to the US political culture, and this has
just become a massive headache. And I've asked this on your show before. For what, but what reason are we accepting paying all of these different costs when there actually is a pathway to a ceasefire that actually couldn't put an end to not only the fighting, to the plausible cases of in aside, but also to the political dilemmas that the US is inflicting on itself as well.
That I earlier today where you said that you thought that so far the ICJ in South Africa have had more influence on Israel's actual behavior so far than the Biden administration. What change in behavior have we seen that you think can be linked to this international effort.
We saw a very clear effort by the Israelis to try to ethnically cleanse Garza by pushing the Egyptians and the Jordanians as well as some African countries, trying to see if they would take essentially two million gudens and they would depopulate Godsa. We have seen a decline in those efforts, certainly a decline in the public statements about that.
I think it is quite reasonable to suspect that that has something to do with the Court, because if the court is investigating Israeli war crimes, and in the midst of that, the Israelis are very openly lobbying to see if countries will aid them and ethnically cleansing cause, that's obviously not going to be helpful for them in the case. And if that is the case, then that suggests that this idea that international law is completely toothless in this
specific case. You know, just a mere application of South Africa's complained to the ICG may have had a greater impact on Israel's conduct than what the Biden administration claims that it has achieved with all of its quiet whispers in the background.
Who you know.
Who is with the Center for International Policy has released as statement I want to read real quickly said. Today's ruling of the International Criminal Court, which ordered Israel to undertake provisional measures to ensure that Palestinians in Gaza are protected from acts of genocide is enormously significant. International legal for such as the ICJ are appropriate venues for the handling of such consequential matters, especially in situations as dire
as that in Gaza. If we support the creation of a global community based on shared rules rather than simply might makes right, it is absolutely essential that all countries, including the United States, acknowledge the legitimacy of this ruling and take necessary steps in response. And to that point, I wanted to last questions. I know you got to run, and I appreciate you jumping on with us early this morning.
I wanted to quickly play my exchange yesterday with State Departments spokesperson Vedan Patel about this exact question of whether or not h the US would respect whatever the ruling was that the next day here, I'll play that and then get your response.
End.
Want to go back to the j question, setting aside opining on how the how the preliminary verdict might come out, would the US at least commit to not vetoing enforcement of whatever the court rules one way or the other.
I'm not going to commit to any action from up here.
Question from earlier.
Doesn't that undermine the US US insistence that other countries ought to follow these court rulings? What does it leave of the kind of rules based order If countries can pick and choose decisions.
That's certainly not what I was indicating. Again, I think we need to take a step back here because a decision has not come down, and no one here knows unless you can tell the future what exactly that will be. I'm not going to commit any US government action from up here within the ostracies of any body. What I can say is that we believe that the allegations that started this process that Israel is committing genocide, we believe
those to be unfounded. Simultaneously, though, we'll continue to raise with our Israeli partners the moral and strategy comparative that they take additional steps to minimize civilians.
That's more or less his response. How do you feel the State Department will evolve after today's actual ruling now that they can't do that, Well, we don't know how they're going to rule.
I think it's a problematic enough for the State Department to continue to defend the US's refusal to push this rule in the direction of the SEATSPY. Already, this is just going to make matters worse. Let me make two points of this. First of all, it is quite fascinating. I don't remember exact numbers, but we looked into it that senior Biden administration officials have more or less stopped
using the term rules based international order. Since October seventh, there's been a significant decline, and that tells you stoping a clear awareness in there that they know very well that there is no consistency whatsoever and there's no legitimacy or credibility talking about it, given how the United States under Biden has acted on it in the case of Gauda, and it's been the time frame is social short after Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, so that the discrepancy the
double standards are just so late. Secondly, I think it's also important to note here that Biden's beer hawk unconditional support for Israel in all of this may actually have contributed to this, because had Biden adopted a more measured approach and actually pushed back against Israeli accessive in a much more impotent way, the Israelis may not have ended up engaging in activities that the Court then would find plausibly constituting a genocide, and that I think tells you
again how problematic it is when the United States gives blank checks to some of its partners, whether it's Israel, saviu Ravier. Whoever it undermines US national interest and security, it certainly undermines the partner's interest as well, because look at where it Israel is finding it suffering. So paradoxically, perhaps the very excessive amount of support that Biden has proved it is will w It's actually backfired in the finding analysis an undefined.
Treata PARSI, thank you so much.
Treat as the executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, I'm Ryan Graham. I'm the watching bureau chief for The Intercept and also co host of Counterpoints. You can watch Breaking Points every morning at YouTube, Spotify and elsewhere you can go to actually go to Breakingpoints dot com. We have a twenty five percent off our premium memberships right now which enable us to do this reporting.
And I've got my book right here behind me, which.
Is the final final plug that the squad AOC in the hope of a political revolution, which is heavily about the way that the pro Israel lobby has shaped what is possible within democratic party discourse when it comes to Israel Palestine. So treat it once again, thank you so much for joining us this morning, this is fascinating. We're going to continue to cover this